Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- From: David Friedman <ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:29:50 -0800
In article <1ufsjxmxrqhl4.2incf0eakccb$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>,
"Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:51:56 -0800, David Friedman
> <ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> <news:ddfr-824BCB.11515616012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
> rec.arts.sf.composition:
>
> [...]
>
> > One is a prime. three is a prime. Five is a prime. Seven is a prime.
>
> One isn't a prime.
One is a special case. It ought to be a prime, but mathematicians like
to confuse people. If Ockham had had anything to say about it ... .
The joke is supposed to have versions for different researchers. The
experimental physicist goes on:
Nine? Eleven is a prime, thirteen is a prime, all odd numbers are prime.
"What about nine?"
"Nine is experimental error."
--
www.daviddfriedman.com
daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- References:
- CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- From: Julian Flood
- Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- From: James Nicoll
- Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- From: Jacey Bedford
- Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- From: David Friedman
- Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- From: Patricia C. Wrede
- Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- From: Jacey Bedford
- Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- From: Suzanne A Blom
- Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- From: David Friedman
- Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- From: Brian M. Scott
- CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- Prev by Date: Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- Next by Date: Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- Previous by thread: Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- Next by thread: Re: CRIT: COAGG synopsis (longish, sorry)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|